Learn how to grow and use medicinal herbs, adaptogen herbs such as Jiaogulan, and herbal medicine to create vibrant health and an enriched life style. There are a number of herbs you can grown at home which is fun and great for your health.
Learn Tips on feeding your pets and livestock naturally with organic greens such as Comfrey, Kudzu, plantain, and Moringa. Get back to your roots in a healthy way.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

This article comes not only from my experience with clients but with our family. Taking care of a loved one who is dying will raise both your blood pressure and labs. Stress of one form or another is having profound affects on families everywhere. Our health and mental health is being affected. This is proven by the obesity and diabetes numbers just to name two important ones. Look at the rate at which anti-depressants are being prescribed and the many thousands of cholesterol and blood pressure prescriptions. Look at the drug ads that constantly run on the TV and the magazines. This is not good!

Through the discussions in the next blogs, I will give you help on lowering your blood pressure and other lab markers, as we did. We both now have normal blood pressure and cholesterol. We lowered our lab markers during the stressful time of his dad's last months. His heart tests came out normal, even though the tests were given in the week his father died. If we can lower our markers during such a horrible, stressful time, so can you!

It doesn't matter what the cause is, as long as the cause or causes is identified if possible and cleared up. You must get to the base cause of your health problem. A good physical is also needed too with labs to tell you what you need to work on. You many have no idea, your cholesterol is high.

In my husband's case his blood pressure and cholesterol rose to being dangerous with two TIAs (mini strokes) which are small strokes. He is 72.

In my case with life long LOW blood pressure, it was my cholesterol readings only. All my labs were normal except for my stress level. My cholesterol rose to 400 to be specific. That was during the second year of being the main care giver for his father. There were no other risk factors for me involved such as smoking, drinking, excess weight, or diabetes. I have low blood sugar as well. I told the doctor at my visit it was stress which he laughed at, even though there is significant research to support the effects of stress on these metabolic issues.In the case of my husband, all his labs went out of control to a dangerous level. His heart doctor ordered a echo heart test, a heart stress test, and a month long monitor of his heart. That is where you wear a heart rate monitor on your body for a full month. For two of the tests, he needed to be free of caffeine in his blood for 24 hours. Tell that to a man who for 50 plus years has been drinking over 10 cups a day of coffee. I had worked since 2004 to get him to lower his coffee intake without progress. His doctor told him to cut back to 4 cups, which he did not do. So now we had his heart doctor doing his best to force prescription drugs on him. I told him if he would not do the lifestyle changes to lower is blood pressure, he might just have to take them. I told the doctor we were going to take 2-3 months to work on that first! If we did not succeed in lowering those markers, he would take the prescription drugs. It was now or never, since he had to take the heart tests that required him to be off ALL caffeine for 24 hours. He got migraines within just a few hours without coffee.Fist step was HIS decision to finally cut back on coffee. Yours might be soda or energy drinks that contain huge amounts of caffeine. Never go off coffee or caffeine drinks cold turkey unless you want to feel horrible. Cut back by two cups or two sodas over a week period of time. Then cut back two more over the same time period again. Do this until you have achieved your goal. In his case he had to be at a point he could go without coffee for 24 hours so he could get through the heart tests. Could you go without your soda or coffee for 24 hours? 2nd Step: Is there a medication you are taking that is causing heart problems or blood pressure problems? Research the drugs you are on yourself. Do not rely on what the doctor tells you. If you find you are on a medication that is a problem, have your doctor lower it or change the prescription. Ask him if you can stop taking the prescription. If so lower it over time as well with his supervision. If you are having heart problems, he may be more willing to work with you on a medication change.3rd step: Look at your lifestyle and what factors are influencing your health. It could be a job, a supervisor, or a dying parent. Face that your job is causing problems. When my husband quit his job at Sam's Club, his blood pressure immediately a day later, came down significantly. Then we began as caregivers for his dad, and up it went again. I determined that to keep him alive and well, I needed to be the main caregiver in charge of his dad. His dad had an attitude with Marty and picked fights with him. That caused my stress level to go up significantly which was reflected in cholesterol readings. You must identify and face those factors and either try to improve them by cutting off the source of the stress or changing the way you react to the stress. That is a hard one for many families who have kids that are sick, a partner that is ill, money problems and job problems. You must find a way to reduce your stress to lower those metabolic markers.4th Step: Take your blood pressure everyday to see those numbers over all,not just at the doctors office. keep a diary of these readings for 2 months, twice a day, with notes on stress factors like your child keeping you up all night.Next cut back on coffee, caffeine consumption, sugar, and junk foods. Start out slowly, improving your diet some each week. Increase exercise and time for yourself, even for only a few minutes each day. Remember to do this in steps, not cold turkey. I had a lady years ago, tell me she was not addicted to coffee. I challenged her to prove me wrong. She stopped coffee cold turkey, got sick as a dog, and found her golf game was impaired drastically. Caffeine is addictive and over 4 cups is destructive to your health. This is especially true for women because it affects hormone imbalance and estrogen levels. It can cause stomach ulcers and pain. I can tell you that from experience. I drink coffee until about 2000 when I doubled up in pain after my daily cup of coffee. Now black tea, coffee, and any caffeine still affects my stomach causing pain. One cup of black tea will cause stomach issues, so I don't drink any of that any more. You cheat and you pay.Here is first supplement below to talk about on your path to normalize blood pressure health.

Your blood pressure may be high due to the following dietary deficiencies: Magnesium is the second most common deficiency in the US due to junk food and fast food. We may have the money to eat well but often we don't. That is why diabetes and obesity are two of the most dangerous diseases at this time. We have the money in our country to live a more healthy lifestyle but instead we fill our kitchen with foods that do nothing but cause metabolic disorders and weight gain.

You may be suffering from multiple dietary deficiencies! Most doctors do not check for vitamin deficiencies other than Vitamin D. If on prescription drugs, they may test for more. Does that not let you know that often prescription drugs are the cause for metabolic problems.

Stress causes digestion and problems in every organ system in the body including your ability to break down and absorb food nutrients. Stress directly causes blood pressure problems and other metabolic markers such as cholesterol.

How do you determine what is a good vitamin supplement and what should be in that supplement? That
issue is why so many people do not see results. They buy junk
supplements or supplements which do not meet their individual needs.

Purchase a complete multi-vitamin supplement that
includes nutrients in high levels with extra amounts of the B-Vitamins. The formula should include at least 50 mg of the different B-vitamins. Make sure it contains Vitamin D and
Folic Acid.

Suggested amounts listed on the bottle label are the minimums necessary for basic health not for people with health problems. Those amounts are determined by the government who does not believe in supplements, just drugs. The Vitamin C levels are the minimum to keep from getting scurvy. They are destructive by convincing people that their diet and lifestyle is sufficient to be healthy. Look at the obesity and diabetes numbers to show you how false that premise is. Our government is not taking care of our health to be sure.

Vitamin companies are not allowed to give you advice on how much of each vitamin to take if you have health issues. That is why the label is so generic. Their hands are tied by the AMA and the FDA labeling laws.

Read labels! Many
of the vitamin formulas are so low, they are useless. Just because it
states that it is a stress formula does not mean it is a complete or
good formula.

Look at the listed ingredients and their amounts. 5
or 10 mg is not enough during illness or during a health crisis. It is
not enough to reduce your blood pressure. Most of the 'one a days' are
not worth the money you are paying. Tablets take hydrocloric acid to
break them down in the digestive tract. They are cheaper but less
digestible by your system. Tablets often end up in the toilet because
your system could not break them down. This is especially true during
illness, digestive imbalances, stress and in the elderly. Medicine side
effects affect your digestive system too.

In any label the ingredients are listed in the order of most importance. The last ingredients are present in the least amounts. The first ingredients are where the main ingredients are listed. That is true for grocery labels as well.

Add a calcium citrate/ magnesium supplement with at least
250 to 500 mg of magnesium to your diet. Even if you don't change the
other lifestyle factors, doing this will help you.

Oyster shell, dolomite, and carbonate are difficult to break down. They are cheap but pretty useless for health. Calcium citrate is the better choice. Magnesium works as a laxative so how much you take depends on bowel tolerance. If 500 mg of magnesium gives you loose stools, cut it back to 250 mg to see how that works. Vitamin C is the same way. Take both Vitamin C and Magnesium according to bowel tolerance. Capsules cost more but are easier to digest than tablets.

Vitamin C
is important too. You should be taking at least 1000mg of Vitamin C a
day with health problems.

Take the supplement! It
does not help you when the supplement sits on the shelf with the seal
still intact. Do not expect miracles over night! It can take days, weeks
or months to bring down your blood pressure. It takes being consistent
and determination to bring your health back to normal.

This is the blog for today. Next blog is more on supplements to help normalize your blood pressure and cholesterol

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Does your blood pressure go sky high when You visit your doctors office?

This does not prove you need medication, even though the doctor will use the in office test to force you on medication.

To know if you really need help, you need to keep a diary of your blood pressure for 60 days. Take your blood pressure everyday, twice daily.

Do not take your blood pressure within 4 hours of coffee or caffeine intake, after eating, after drinking, or after exercise.

Wait at least an hour after exercise or activity. Wait until you are rested and more relaxed.

Do not watch the cuff as it monitors your blood pressure.

Do not talk.

Close your eyes, breathe deeply and slowly while the pressure on your arm drops until it is finished. Do this at the doctor's office as well.

On your daily sheet note any stress or stressful calls. This is important such as if your child is sick or you had a fight with someone. This will tell you how emotions affect your blood pressure.

You need to investigate any and all of your medications to see if any of them influence blood pressure. If you are on medications that could be raising your blood pressure, you need to let your doctor know and ask him to take you off the medication if possible. He may not be aware of this side effect. My husband was taking Strattera that can cause all sorts of changes in the heart and heart function. He was slowly taken off that drug since he was just taking it for ADD. If the medicine is critical, perhaps they can change your prescription to one with less side effects.

This is the side effects from Staterra for example below

Side Effects

See also Warning section.Stomach upset, nausea, vomiting, constipation, tiredness, loss of appetite/weight loss, dry mouth, dizziness, drowsiness, trouble sleeping, or decrease in sexual ability/desire may occur. In women, menstrual cramps or missed/irregular periods may also occur. If any of these effects persist or worsen, tell your doctor or pharmacist promptly.
To lessen the chance of dizziness, get up slowly from a sitting or lying position.
Remember that your doctor has prescribed this medication
because he or she has judged that the benefit to you is greater than
the risk of side effects. Many people using this medication do not have
serious side effects.
This medication may raise your blood pressure. Check your blood pressure regularly and tell your doctor if the results are high.

When you go to the doctor arrive early to calm down from the drive, read or keep yourself quiet before you go into his office. He will take it at that point. If it is high and at home it has not been, show him your diary. If you can prove consistent normal readings at home, he should not put pressure on you to go on medicine. If it is high at home, tell him you want to take 3 months to try herbal medicine, before you go on prescription drugs. Be forceful. If he wants heart tests taken, refuse to get them done (unless it is critical) until you have time to work on lowering your blood pressure. Unless it is critical, most will agree though doubtful you will succeed, to let you have that time.If your blood pressure is consistently high, you need to cut slowly back on coffee and caffeine. If you are drinking 12 cups of coffee, cut back by one or two cups each week until down to 4 cups. Most heart tests require that you go off caffeine for 24 hours. If you can't do that then you will have to wean off coffee completely to get those tests done. The heart stress tests require that. . Go Slow or you will get headaches and get sick.

Caffeine DOES raise blood pressure. If you drink caffeine all day, then you will not get your blood pressure down without medication, if that even works.There are several herbs and herbal combinations that help reduce blood pressure and cholesterol so will go into that the next blog.

This article I am reprinting in depth from theMedical Kidnapping Website. Their website exposes how Adult Protective Services and Child Protective Services are kidnapping both children and adults on a consistent basis. Lets say your child has a problem. They want to do a dangerous operation. You say 'no' you want to seek a second opinion. They are then calling in CPS and taking the child in some cases. It may be that you want to go to a wholistic cancer clinic versus chemo. They are seizing children without a court order in many cases.

This article exposes how the drug companies continually try to discredit vitamins, supplements, and their benefits. From 1985 until 2000 I helped run an independent newspaper agency of the San Diego Union in San Diego, CA.

Why am I bringing this up?

It seems that a drug company has purchased both main papers: The San Diego Union and the LA times in Los Angeles.

So now these two huge newspapers with many thousands of readers are now owned by a drug company. You will in the future see articles against herbs, vitamins and other supplements. You will see it full of drug ads and their benefits. If newspapers are already totally politicized and biased, now you will see bias against alternative medicine as well. This is really destructive to you the reader who thinks that everything you read in a newspaper is truth. I am afraid it only the opposite.

Please read the article in full. You need to know how much the FDA, the AMA, and now the newspapers are deceiving you on the truth.

There are links at the end of this article for you to explore further how you are being brain washed by drug ads, magazine drug ads and articles, and the media. The media is in bed with their biggest advertisers. That is what keep them running financially. That is true for TV advertising as well. Drug ads saturate your programming. You are being brain washed in every aspect of your life.

The War Against Vitamin D – A Threat to Big Pharma

Comments by Brian ShilhavyEditor, Health Impact News
Natural substances with tremendous healing capabilities that cannot
be patented are a huge threat to the pharmaceutical industry and their
FDA-approved drugs, and certainly vitamin D is at the top of this list.
For example, published scientific literature shows that vitamin D is
more effective in preventing annual influenza than the dangerous flu
shot. See:

Since the best and primary source of vitamin D is from the sun, most
people in North America are vitamin D deficient, even during the summer
months when we are told to block the sun’s rays due to the fear of skin
cancer.

When a natural substance like vitamin D can cure and prevent so many
diseases, usually in ways far superior to FDA-approved drugs and
vaccines, it should come as no surprise that Big Pharma will pull out
all the stops to discredit the science behind these natural substances,
as they affect their profits from pharmaceutical products.

This is routinely done by funding their own biased studies, and then
attacking medical doctors and scientists who promote natural cures.

One of the areas of vitamin D deficiency that affects many of the families we work with here at Health Impact News,
is in the area of Medical Kidnapping and the widely debunked theory of
Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) that is used to medically kidnap children.
Vitamin D deficiency can lead to brittle bones in infants and
children, where multiple hairline fractures occur giving the appearance
of “abuse” according to proponents of the Shaken Baby Syndrome medical
theory.

One doctor who is a world-renown authority on vitamin D and has
testified in court on behalf of parents falsely accused of SBS, is
Dr. Michael Holick. He has recently come under fire and was attacked in
the corporate-sponsored “mainstream” media that derives much of its
advertising revenue from Big Pharma.

William B. Grant, PhD, the director for the Sunlight, Nutrition, and
Health Research Center, and former senior research scientist at SRI
International, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the NASA Langley
Research Center, has recently published a commentary with the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service exposing Big Pharma’s “disinformation playbook” and how they attack natural cures, and vitamin D health benefits specifically.
Dr. Grant has authored or coauthored over 60 articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Some well-known examples include the big tobacco companies, the coal
and oil industries, the sugar industry, and the National Football
League. The Union of Concerned Scientists has outlined five “pillars” of
the Playbook [Disinformation Playbook], [Alvord 2017].

Big Pharma may be using the Playbook to slow the adoption of strong support for vitamin D.
This article is the product of my further analysis.

The Disinformation Playbook

1. The Fake
Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.2. The Blitz
Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry.3. The Diversion
Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.4. The Screen
Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.5. The Fix
Manipulate government officials or processes to influence policy inappropriately.

Background and evidence that vitamin D improves health outcomes

Big Pharma and its allies in the U.S. and perhaps also in Europe are
opposing major recommendations for increases in vitamin D intakes and
higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels [above 30 or 40 ng/ml
(75-100 nmol/l)], apparently because such measures can significantly
reduce the burden of human disease and, therefore, would reduce income
and profit from treating disease.

Healthcare in the U.S. now consumes almost 20% of the gross domestic product.
Historically, vitamin D was associated with prevention and cure of
rickets and osteomalacia, and later with calcium absorption and bone
health.

In the past two decades, evidence has accrued showing that higher
25(OH)D serum levels from diet, supplements, and/or solar UVB exposure,
are associated and mechanistically linked to better health and longer
life expectancy.

In 2009-2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed the evidence
regarding vitamin D, and was instructed by the study sponsors, the Food
and Drug Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and Health Canada,
to use only the evidence from published high-quality vitamin D
randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

However, by that time, such trials had only found benefits for bone
health. From these studies it was known that bone health ‘normalizes’
above 25(OH)D levels of~20 ng/ml (50 nmol/l).
However, they also used evidence from purely observational studies to
suggest that there were risks associated with vitamin D supplementation
that raised serum 25(OH)D levels above 30 ng/ml [Ross, 2011a].

This was the basis for their hypothesis of a U-shaped serum 25(OH)D
level vs. health outcome relationship (higher risk for both low and high
levels).
However, this concern was later shown to be largely unfounded since
most of the studies reporting U-shaped risk vs. serum level had no data
for subject vitamin D supplementation, or for when it had started,
thereby confounding subject stratification [Grant, 2016].

Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated that UVB exposure
and vitamin D have many non-skeletal health benefits, mainly from
ecological and observational studies and from mechanistic evidence.

A more recent review of vitamin D supplementation guidelines also recommended >30 ng/ml [Pludowski, 2018].
However, such recommendations may be replaced in the near future by
those recommending >40 ng/ml based on studies such as those reported
recently for preterm birth [McDonnell, 2017] and breast cancer
[McDonnell, 2018].

One reason for the low earlier recommendations was the large
underestimate made by the IOM in calculating intakes for the average
population, (i.e. in 50% of the population) rather than for 97.5% of the
population for whom the recommendations were presumed to be aimed
[Veugelers & Ekwaru, 2014].

Of course, Big Pharma and its allies must follow current research
findings on vitamin D with trepidation since they also realize that the
general public also follows the research and has increased its rates of
self-supplementation with > 1000 IU/d vitamin D from 0.2% of the
population in 2001-2002 to 18.2% in 2013-2014, and that supplementation
with >4000 IU/d has also increased from 0.2% in 2007-2008 to 3.2% in
2013-2014 [Rooney, 2017].

Examples of the use of the five pillars of “The Disinformation Playbook” on Vitamin D

1. The Fake
Below are some papers reporting no benefit from vitamin D
supplementation due to methodological flaws. These examples are for
health outcomes for which well-designed and conducted studies have shown
benefits.

JAMA recently published the results of a vitamin D plus calcium
clinical trial using 2000 IU/d vitamin D3 plus 1500 mg/d calcium [Lappe,
2017].
The trial did not find a significant all-cancer risk reduction based
on intention to treat (i.e. comparing outcomes on those who received the
supplements vs. those who received the placebo) [Grant, 2017].
However, the trial did find a significant reduction in all-cancer
incidence for those who achieved a level of >50 ng/ml 25(OH)D,
despite the study being somewhat underpowered.

But the journal did not let the authors present or discuss that
finding in the printed paper, relegating the latter analysis on subjects
who achieved repletion to an online supplement for the paper, which few
people read, and issuing a press release stating that vitamin D
supplementation did not reduce the risk of cancer [JAMA Media Advisory,
2017].

Cochrane systematic reviews were carried out that omitted some clinical trials with positive results.
Thus, a Cochrane review of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy
published in November, 2017, found “There was no effect on preterm
birth” and concluded “The evidence to date seems insufficient to guide
clinical or policy recommendations.” [Roth, 2017].
Overlooked in this review was mention of a paper published in July,
2017, that found a 60% reduction in preterm birth rates for those in a
supplementation study who achieved >40 ng/ml [McDonnell, 2017].

2. The Blitz
The New York Times published a hit piece on Michael Holick by Liz Szabo of Kaiser Family Foundation on August 18, 2018. “Vitamin D, the Sunshine Supplement, Has Shadowy Money Behind It: The
doctor most responsible for creating a billion-dollar juggernaut has
received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the vitamin D industry.”
[Szabo, 2018]

This opinion piece took aim at Dr. Holick because he is considered
the person most responsible for raising public awareness of the benefits
of UVB exposure and vitamin D.
The opinion piece agreed with the IOM report that vitamin D was good
for bone health, but dismissed other benefits through quotes from three
IOM committee members [JoAnn Manson, Clifford Rosen, and Catherine
Ross].

It also stated “A Miracle Pill Loses Its Luster; Enthusiasm for
vitamin D among medical experts has dimmed in recent years, as rigorous
clinical trials have failed to confirm the benefits suggested by early,
preliminary studies.”

However, it did report that some people in the “wellness-industrial
complex,” such as Professor Walter Willett of Harvard, support
supplementation with vitamin D.
The main thrust of the opinion piece was to attack Dr. Holick for
receiving several hundred thousand dollars from the vitamin D industry,
including the indoor tanning industry, pharmaceutical companies and
Quest Diagnostics, a major supplier of 25(OH)D assays.
It is not unethical to be paid for one’s work. It is, however,
unethical not to disclose in journal publications any competing
interests such as funding from the industry that might benefit from the
publication.

Dr. Holick has freely acknowledged his support from the vitamin D industry as he did in the Endocrine Society vitamin D guidelines paper [Holick, 2011].

While several vitamin D researchers submitted letters to the editor
about the above publication, none were published. The submitted letters
supported Dr. Holick and vitamin D supplementation.
Here is the text of one submitted by Cedric F. Garland, Dr. P.H. and Camillo Ricordi, M.D.:

The New York Times is the beacon of truth. But we were shocked by an article (Aug 18) by Liz Szabo.
Masquerading as exposé, it unfairly accused Dr. Michael Holick, who
helped discover a form of vitamin D, of mostly monetary motivation.
Dr. Holick’s discovery of an important biomarker has enabled thousands of epidemiological studies.
Using this biomarker, members of our group discovered that vitamin D3
helps prevent colorectal cancer, and, along with British researchers,
that it also reduces the risks of breast cancer.
Recently other investigators also have found that vitamin D reduces
risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease, and reduces prematurity.
These compelling findings suggest a vitamin D deficiency ‘syndrome’ based on converging data from hundreds of studies.
The cost of correcting underlying vitamin D deficiency would be
miniscule compared to the cost of drug treatment for cancer and
diabetes.
This article is, therefore, misleading. Dr. Holick is an honest, and widely respected researcher.
If readers stop taking vitamin D based on this article, it would do great harm to the public health.

Letters to the editor are an important avenue for countering bias, misstatements, and omissions in newspapers and professional journals.
To deny publication of such letters is poor journalistic practice,
and in this case, considering the importance of vitamin D to the public,
it is immoral.
The most likely reason the Times did not publish any letters in
response is that the revenue from Big Pharma for advertisements is a
large part of its revenue.

Michael Holick is no stranger to controversy.
In 2004, he was fired from Boston University’s department of
dermatology by Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, who was head of the department.

“She called me into her office and said that she couldn’t
have somebody in her department recommending sun exposure.” [Saul,
2006; Solomon, 2010].

Dermatologists advocate avoidance of indoor tanning devices and use
of sunscreen as a way to reduce the risk of skin cancer and melanoma.
They rarely consider the role of UVB exposure in producing vitamin D3,
or, if they do, state that the little amount of vitamin D required (for
bones) can be obtained though a few minutes of solar UVB exposure to the
head and arms or diet.
This, of course, is known to be inadequate, especially during the
winter months and for those who have dark skin. That is the rationale
for the need to take supplements.

3. The Diversion
This approach was explored in great detail by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway in their book Merchants of Doubt [Oreskes & Conway, 2011].
It has also been said that observational studies on vitamin D
supplementation are invalid since they are not supported by randomized
controlled trials.
For example, the untested hypothesis goes, this must mean that low
25(OH)D is a result of disease, rather than a cause [Autier, 2014,
Autier, 2017].
However this hypothesis has been debunked.

“Published RCTs have mostly been performed in
populations without low 25OHD levels. The fact that most [meta-analyses)
on results from RCTs did not show a beneficial effect does not disprove
the hypothesis suggested by observational findings on adverse health
outcomes of low 25OHD levels.” [Rejnmark, 2017]

In addition, many vitamin D clinical trials, including major ones
currently underway, have not been based on measurements of the 25(OH)D
level, but instead on the use of a single-sized dose of vitamin D.

The reason for this is that they are based on the guidelines for
clinical trials of pharmaceutical agents, which assume that 1), the
trial is the only source of the agent; and 2), that there is a linear
dose-response relationship.

Yet neither assumption is satisfied for vitamin D. There are several
sources of vitamin D including UVB exposure, diet, and supplements.
Also health effects are not directly related to the dose of vitamin D
(which is inert), but instead derive from the serum level of 25(OH)D,
with large variations in outcomes with increases in initially low
25(OH)D at low levels, but reduced variation in outcomes with changes in
higher 25(OH)D levels.
Thus, clinical trials should be based on measurements of serum levels
of 25(OH)D, not on vitamin D dosage [Heaney, 2014], [Grant, Boucher
2018], and open-label trials looking for significant health benefits in
which participants know they are taking vitamin D and have sequential
serum 25(OH)D measurements [McDonnell, 2017, McDonnell, 2018].

Other authors have implied that “vitamin D” is just another vitamin
by designing studies as if it were a true vitamin [Fortmann, 2013],
[Misotti, 2013] when, in fact, vitamin D is a hormone precursor provided
either in the diet or made in the skin through the action of UVB on
7-dehydrocholesterol, though the definition of vitamin is a substance
required for life that is NOT produced in the body.
However, the definition of hormone is a regulatory substance produced
in an organism and transported in tissue fluids to stimulate specific
cells or tissues into action.
Nearly every cell has a vitamin D receptor coupled to chromosomes.
When the hormonal metabolite of vitamin D, 1,25(OH)2D, binds to the
vitamin D receptor, gene expression can be up- or down-regulated.

4. The Screen
‘Big Pharma’ contributes to all major disease organizations, and none
of these endorse vitamin D supplementation. In support of this
statement, Google searches were conducted for corporate sponsors of some
of the major disease-centered organizations in the U.S.
None of these organizations have position statements on vitamin D
supplementation, based on a recent review of guidelines for vitamin D
supplementation [Pludowski, 2018].

Disease organizations and pharma corporations that do not endorse vitamin D supplementation:

March of Dimes
The March of Dimes is well-known for playing a role in ending the
polio epidemic in the U.S. After that role, it turned its attention to
reducing the rates of birth defects and premature births.
GrassrootsHealth.net and vitamin D researchers at the Medical
University of South Carolina showed that raising serum 25(OH)D
concentrations of pregnant women early in pregnancy lowered the
multi-racial preterm birth rate in Charleston County, SC (7.3% compared
to 13.4% ) [Wagner, 2016].
Carole Baggerly of GrassrootsHealth.net told me recently that the
March of Dimes is unwilling to discuss vitamin D supplementation for
pregnant women.

Much of its support comes from Big Pharma: In 2012, the March for
Babies national sponsors included their number one corporate supporter
Kmart, along with top supporters of Farmers Insurance Group, Cigna,
Famous Footwear, Sanofi Pasteur, FedEx, Mission Pharmacal, Watson
Pharmaceuticals, First Response, and United Airlines.[March of Dimes,
2012]
A news account in Science August 10, 2018, reported that the
March of Dimes curtailed support for 37 of 42 recipients of individual
research grants due to reduced income [Servick, 2018].

Medical schools

Big Pharma also gives millions for research to medical schools. As a
result, professors and students devote much of their time and effort to
researching and promoting pharmaceutical drugs. This means that adequate
health maintenance and disease prevention through lifestyle choices,
nutrition, and vitamins, is rarely taught.

“Historically, nutrition education has been
underrepresented at many medical schools and residency programs. Our
surveys over a decade show that most medical schools in the United
States are still not ensuring adequate nutrition education, and they are
not producing graduates with the nutrition competencies required in
medical practice. Physicians, residents, and medical students clearly
need more training in nutrition assessment and intervention.” [Adams, 2010].

Medical journals

Big Pharma also places many ads in medical journals and other media,
thereby buying acceptance of the pharmaceutical drug model. Some
journals manifest an anti-vitamin D bias:JAMA; the editors of JAMA made the authors of the paper
reporting results of vitamin D plus calcium supplementation to reduce
risk of cancer [Lappe, 2017], discussed above, bury their most important
finding in an online appendix with the excuse that since evaluating
results in terms of 25(OH)D levels was not specified in the trial
protocol, it could not be included in the printed version. This paper
also suggested that the public was being harmed by taking large doses of
vitamin D. But no such evidence exists.

The Lancet; the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
published two papers suggesting that since clinical trials largely have
not found reductions in disease risk from vitamin D supplementation
[Autier, 2014], “that low vitamin D status is a consequence of ill
health, rather than its cause.” [Autier, 2017]. However, this hypothesis
was untested and unproven.New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published this paper by authors of the IOM report [Ross, 2011b] questioning whether there is widespread vitamin D deficiency.
A recent paper found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation for
pregnant women [Roth, 2018] though supplementation began quite late in
gestation (mean of 20 weeks) and it takes many weeks for 25(OH)D
increases to plateau.

However, The NEJM then declined to publish a paper reporting the
benefits of measuring the serum 25(OH)D level and supplementing with
vitamin D3 in Iran [Rostami, 2018], which did find significant benefits
from vitamin D supplementation of pregnant women. [B. Hollis, private
communication]

The fact that the major journals do not publish what appear to be
valid, and useful, papers on the non-skeletal benefits of vitamin D
gives the editors of the Vitamin D page at Wikipedia.org grounds for
denying that vitamin D has many non-skeletal benefits.

5. The Fix
Big Pharma exerts significant control over the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), The Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The evidence is as follows.CDC

“Many top executives and leaders at the CDC also leave
the agency to take very lucrative positions with pharmaceutical
companies, revealing a revolving door policy between the government and
Big Pharma.” [Shilhavy, 2018]

An example is that Dr. Julie Gerberding approved Gardisil vaccine and became head of Merck’s vaccine division. [England, 2018]
The CDC’s review on the effects of vitamin D predates the IOM report
[Ross, 2011a] with the most recent references from 2007. It does not
make any recommendations regarding vitamin D supplementation or
desirable 25(OH)D levels.
However, it does refer readers to other websites that give inadequate recommendations for vitamin D supplementation [CDC, 2018]:
For more information about vitamin D, see the Institute of Medicine’s
Dietary Reference Intake reports (Institute of Medicine 1997), fact
sheets from the National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary
Supplements (http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/DS_WhatYouNeedToKnow.aspx), as well as information from the American Society for Nutrition (http://jn.nutrition.org)FDA

The FDA is controlled by Big Pharma through the appointment of its
leaders by the Federal Government and by the fact that Big Pharma funds
many reviews of drugs up for approval.
As noted in news accounts, there is a revolving door between Big
Pharma and the FDA. Thus, those entering the FDA at the policy levels
often come from Big Pharma and know that if they do Big Pharma’s bidding
while in office, they will be rewarded with a high-paying job in Big
Pharma after leaving the agency.

(A Look at How the Revolving Door Spins from FDA to Industry – NPR [Lupkin, 2018])
FDA advisors are often rewarded financially after new drug approvals,
a practice called “delayed incentives,” yet the FDA has done nothing to
restrict this practice. [Piller, 2018a,b]
FDA’s information about vitamin D:

“The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug
companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and
cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average
review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence,
increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs
of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of
patients.” [Light, 2013].

NIH
Big Pharma has arguably been captured by the One Percent [Zaitchik, 2018].
The NIH posted a Fact Sheet for Health Professionals regarding
vitamin D. It basically endorses the IOM report [Ross, 2011a]. The most
recent references (two) are from 2014, but more recent studies show that
high 25(OH)D levels are beneficial in promoting health. [NIH, 2018]
A former worker in Big Pharma from 1984-95, who co-founded the Nordic
Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, and is now a professor at the
University of Copenhagen, published a book examining how Big Pharma
corrupted health Care [Gotzsche, 2013].
In 2009, the Institute of Medicine was given the task of reviewing the guidelines for supplements of vitamin D and calcium.

The study was funded by the Food and Drug Administration, the
National Institutes of Health, and Health Canada. Among the guidelines
was the requirement that the only evidence for beneficial effects had to
come from clinical trials published by the time the report was
published (end of 2010) [Chung, 2009].

By that time, randomized controlled trials had only shown beneficial
effects for bone health. The report recommended 600 IU/d vitamin D for
those up to 70 years of age, 800 IU/d for those over 70 years of age.

The minutes of the meetings have never been made public, so we will
probably never know what other considerations were used in making these
recommendations.
Interestingly, several of the members of this committee have
continued to publish papers suggesting that there is little evidence of
benefits of vitamin D, for example, disputing the recommendations of the
2011 of the Endocrine Society vitamin D [Holick 2011, 2012] and
questioning whether there is a vitamin D pandemic [Rosen, 2012a, b;
Manson, 2016].

Newspapers

Pharma Owns LA Times
The newspaper has been bought by a biotech billionaire, further entrenching Big Pharma’s control of the media (ANH-USA, 2018).
From the LA Times:

Biotech billionaire Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong on Monday
will take control of the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune,
two historic newspapers rooted in Southern California civic life for
more than 135 years? that now must adapt for the digital age.
Soon-Shiong is spending $500 million to acquire the news
organizations, along with Spanish-language Hoy and a handful of
community newspapers, from Chicago-based Tronc.
Comment: “Usually Big Pharma influences the media through the
billions the industry spends on advertising, but this time the tactic is
outright ownership. Note too that Dr. Soon-Shiong is in the vaccine business, so we
can expect the LA Times to be vocal supporters of what the state of
California is doing to make it impossible for parents to deviate from
the vaccination schedule. Not only has the state eliminated all non-medical exemptions to
vaccination; they are cracking down on doctors offering medical
exemptions, too.”

Interested readers can find more information at these websites:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Over 27 million publications listed, most with abstracts, some with full text freely available.https://scholar.google.com.
This website can be easily searched and may have papers not listed at
pubmed.gov. In addition, it has more links to full papers as well as
listings of other papers that cited the papers found.http://www.grassrootshealth.net.
This organization, led by Carole Baggerly with Cedric F. Garland, Dr.
P.H. as the scientific advisor, promotes the benefits of UVB exposure
and vitamin D to the general public. It enrolls participants in
voluntary vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid prospective studies, which
include semiannual blood spot tests.http://www.vitamindcouncil.org,
led by John J. Cannell, MD, has pioneered advances in the understanding
of the role of vitamin D in reducing risk of influenza, reducing risk
and treating those with autism spectrum disorders, and improving
athletic performance, as well as fighting against criminal punishment of
parents whose infants are found with broken bones and are falsely
accused of baby abuse when the real cause is low serum 25(OH)D levels.
It has reviews of the evidence for many adverse health outcomes. It
sends out frequent emails regarding the benefits of vitamin D.http://vitamindsociety.org/ is led by Perry Holman. It is a Canada-based vitamin D advocacy organization, with good information about vitamin D.https://vitamindwiki.com/VitaminDWiki,
is led by Henry Lahore. This website has a trove of information and
papers on the benefits of vitamin D. Mr. Lahore works tirelessly to keep
the site up to date.http://sunlightinstitute.org is run by Marc Sorenson, Ed.D. It promotes sun and UV exposure and vitamin D.Disclosure: Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center
currently receives funding from Bio-Tech Pharmacal, Inc. (Fayetteville,
AR). In the past, it has also received funding from
GrassrootsHealth.net, the VitaminDCouncil.org, the VitaminDSociety.org,
and the UV Foundation. I have also received reimbursement for travel
expenses for making presentations at various conferences related to
vitamin D and UV exposure, and for coauthoring books on vitamin D.Acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank Barbara Boucher and Robert G. Smith for helpful input on this document.

Translate

Disclosure Policies and CopyRight

Paid Endorsement Disclosure: In order for me to support my blogging activities, I may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for my endorsement, remuneration, testimonial and or links to any products or services from this blog. Greatly Blessed Medicinal Herbs is also a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com

I am also a independent distributor for Nature's Sunshine Herb and Vitamins for which I receive income from sales.

Medical Disclaimer:

I am not a doctor and the statements and products promoted on this blog have not been evaluated by the FDA or AMA. Any products or blog material mentioned in my blogs are not intended to diagnose, treat , cure, or prevent any disease. I cannot give medical advice by phone or email. It is suggested that you should get advice from your doctor before you add any herb or supplement to your diet.

Growing and Using Moringa and Medicinal Herbs: All rights Reserved 2012-2017. Simple theme. Theme images by gaffera. Powered by Blogger.